It looks like he hasn't improved! It looks like he is still wrong, wrong.

First of all, Greg praises John Button:-

But Button knew that working Australians were better served by embracing economic change, rather than pretending it could be avoided. He knew Labor values of fairness and justice were best advanced by building economic strength and resilience, not through economic atrophy.

He tries to use this to justify the Carbon tax. To his credit he does call it a tax but is still pushing the lie that the tax is on carbon - that vaguely dirty sooty substance when the tax is actually on vital-to-life, essential, invisible trace gas, carbon dioxide. He then pulls out the next lie - carbon pollution.

The government considered two key questions when it designed the Clean Energy Future plan: can the policy deliver the reductions in pollution we need and will it do this in the cheapest and most equitable way? The first question is crucial for the credibility of any climate change policy. The carbon price mechanism is an emissions trading scheme designed to cut emissions by at least 160 million tonnes in the year 2020, and continue to cut emissions each year to achieve an 80 per cent reduction over year 2000 levels by 2050. This represents Australia's fair share of the global effort to reduce emissions.

Greg's two key question.

1: Can the policy deliver the reductions in pollution? If, (and it's a big if) the policy is designed to reduce carbon dioxide, it won't be delivering a reduction in pollution. If however, the policy is designed to carry out the socialist policy of redistributing income, it won't help Australia's economy.

2: Will it do this in the cheapest and most equitable way? Is it equitable to penalise your own country against your trading partners? No. Will it be the cheapest way? The cheapest way to what? To unnecessarily penalise your own country? No.

The second question is essential for maintaining a strong economy and minimising the cost of adjustment for households and businesses.

How is it then, Mr Combet, that Ross Garnaut - one of the architect's of the scheme, a few days ago said that the government's proposal involves "reasonable economic costs". Is it essential for maintaining a strong economy or will there be costs to the economy?

CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet claims that reducing emissions intensity is necessary for environmental and economic reasons ("Carbon tax is in the best Labor tradition of reform", 30/9).
His comparison with the reductions in protection effected in the 1980s is, however, a false one.
Those reductions improved economic growth because they shifted resources into more efficient areas of the economy. By contrast, the government's climate change policy will reduce efficiency and economic growth. This is acknowledged by Treasury and by the ACTU.

As the penalties to business eventuate, we will see jobs disappear as businesses restructure, or fold or some move overseas.

As with the reforms of the 1980s, present-day economic reform must be undertaken in the national interest, to ensure we remain competitive in a global economy.

That's right, Mr Combet. We MUST ensure "we remain competitive in a global economy." Penalising Australians is not a way to remain competitive. Remember John Button and "Labor values of fairness and justice."